Northcott House Residential Care and Nursing Home Also known as 1-684385445

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

At this assessment we did not assess all quality statements within this key question. The scores of these areas have been combined with scores based on the rating from the last inspection completed in November 2023, which was good. The overall rating for this key question remains good. People received person-centred care tailored to their individual needs and preferences. Staff knew people well and involved them in making decisions that would affect them. People were treated equally and given the same opportunities by staff who were knowledgeable about discrimination and inclusion. Complaints had been responded to in line with the complaints policy.

This service scored 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People and relatives found care and support was personalised and responsive to their individual needs. A relative told us, “The staff are attentive. The staff seem to understand his problems. They know about his physical problems and about the dementia. He didn’t want to talk about [medical condition] at the other home, but here he’s more able.” A person told us, "They [staff] know what they are doing, when I need help." Another person said, "Yes they [staff] do [know me well]. They write down what I like or they just remember." People were aware they had care plans in place, however some people spoken with told us they had not seen these. These people, did confirm however they were asked about their care, likes and dislikes and any concerns they may have. A relative told us, "They [staff] discuss things with me and then we talk about it. We discuss everything together."

Information about people's life histories including their interests, family members and past jobs was included in their care plans. This meant staff had the necessary information to understand how to support a person's wellbeing and meet their emotional and social needs. Staff were able to tell us about people’s needs, including their preferences about how their care was provided, their interests and likes and dislikes. A staff member said, “I have a good understanding when it comes to caring for people with a memory impairment. I will look for ways to support them in a way they are happy with, explain what I am doing and include them in their care.” The manager told us they completed regular audits of care plans to ensure these were up to date and reflective of people’s needs. They provided examples of how they had supported people to access care and treatment which met their personal circumstances. Care records reflected people and their relatives were regularly involved in planning and making shared decisions about their care and treatment.

We observed staff supporting people in a person-centred way and they clearly knew them well and had developed supportive caring relationships with them. Documents received from the service showed when conversations with people or their relatives had taken place and this was well documented. This helped to ensure people’s needs and preferences were known and understood and demonstrated people were supported and empowerment to make decisions about their care. We saw evidence that individual meetings with people, relatives and staff had taken place to discuss specific needs and concerns.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

Since the last inspection a new manager and new deputy manager had been appointed. People and relatives spoken with said they see the management team regularly; were confident they would act on concerns and spoke positively about them. Comments included, “He [manager] speaks to me and seems very good”, “I see him [manager] most days. I feel he would sort out things, if possible, perhaps not immediately, but he would get it done” and “He comes to talk to [relative]. He’s always walking around. He’s very approachable.” People's communication needs were identified, recorded and highlighted in their care plans. This ensured that staff were aware of the best way to talk with people and present information. People and their relatives knew how to raise a complaint and were confident that action would be taken. For example, one person described how they had complained about a bush in front of their window obscuring their view of the garden. The gardener told them they would cut it back and had done so.

Staff said they were listened to and valued by the management team. Staff engaged well and were supervised which included direct observations of practice, supervisions, and appraisal as well as team meetings and training. Staff were able to contribute their ideas and influence service delivery.

People and relatives were consulted in a range of ways. These included quality assurance surveys, 'residents' meetings' and one-to-one discussions with people and their families. People and their relatives knew how to raise a complaint and were confident that action would be taken. Information on how to make a complaint was available to each person was displayed within the home. Records demonstrated there was a system in place for logging, recording and investigating complaints.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

Staff demonstrated a person-centred approach. They described how they supported people in line with their individual needs and preferences. The staff and management team actively sought out and listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. Where identified, this resulted in changes to people’s care and support. Discussions with staff showed they had a genuine interest in the people they were supporting and understood their needs well. Staff told us and we observed people were listened to and their views and values were considered and respected. Staff including the manager and deputy manager worked hard to help ensure people did not experience inequalities in care and treatment and staff told us they had received training in this area. If people living at the home did not have English as a first language this was considered to help, ensure effective communication could be maintained. Additionally, people were supported to attend events or religious gathering which followed their beliefs should they wish to do so.

Policies and procedures were in place in relation to equity, equality and diversity. The pre-admission and care planning process viewed showed people were considered as individuals. This helped to ensure people received the care they required and reduce the risk of inequality in outcomes. Staff had completed training in dementia, communication and equality and diversity. Feedback and observations supported the fact that staff had implemented learning and a culture had been created of personalised care and support.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.